Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A new analysis of licensing data shows that not only is use of the GPL and other copyleft licenses continuing to decline, but the rate of disuse is actually accelerating." This shouldn't be surprising. The GPL is complex, and I honestly don't blame both individuals and companies opting for simpler, more straightforward licenses like BSD or MIT-like licenses.
Thread beginning with comment 515214
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: hm?
by Neolander on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hm?"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

I agree with that. I was just pointing out that releasing code under the GPL was not giving it away, but rather providing it for an unusual price.

For people who truly want to give code away in a charity-like fashion, there is stuff like the Creative Commons CC0 license, which nicely deals with the problem of public domain licensing in countries where the notion doesn't exist.

Edited 2012-04-22 12:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: hm?
by bassbeast on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 09:57 in reply to "RE[7]: hm?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Then PLEASE just stop calling it free, alright? while RMS may be a big fan of newspeak (even going so far as to refuse interviews unless you speak HIS language HIS way) using newspeak to try to change reality is just wrong and any geek should be able to see that.

Let me put it THIS way: If I say to you "I will give you a "free" ride today but you MUST give ME a ride tomorrow" is that FREE? No it is not. For thousand of years free has had a clear and precise definition, free is just that, free of cost, restrictions, it is just that, free.

What the GPL is is a SHARING license, why is that word so shocking and offense? Sharing is a nice word, and is also quite clear and precise, I share with you and in return you share with me, see how that works?

So lets just be honest, okay? BSD is a free license, GPL is a sharing license, MSFT uses a restricted license. See how easy and clear that is? How even those that aren't a part of FOSS would have ZERO trouble getting the gist? So lets just leave the newspeak head games for RMS and the crazy that compared the BSD Daemon to satanism and let us geeks just speak honestly, how about that?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: hm?
by lemur2 on Tue 24th Apr 2012 00:53 in reply to "RE[8]: hm?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Let me put it THIS way: If I say to you "I will give you a "free" ride today but you MUST give ME a ride tomorrow" is that FREE? No it is not. For thousand of years free has had a clear and precise definition, free is just that, free of cost, restrictions, it is just that, free.


The one word "free" in English actually has several meanings, there is not one single clear and precise definition as you claim. The meaning that is intended for the phrase Free Software is freedom, as in liberty, and not gratis, or zero cost. Free Software does indeed have a cost, almost in the sense you point out. The deal known as copyleft is actually this: "I will give you a ride today provided you do the same for others afterwards".

It is all about collaboration. Collaboration requires both giving and taking by all parties. Taking and not giving is not collaboration, it is just taking. Collaboration is therefore not zero cost, it is not gratis.

Then PLEASE just stop calling it free, alright?


For this reason, many people would prefer that it be called "Freedom Software" rather than "Free Software". Unfortunately, no-one is in control of the English language, and no-one can control what everybody calls something.

Edited 2012-04-24 01:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: hm?
by zima on Sat 28th Apr 2012 22:55 in reply to "RE[8]: hm?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

For thousand of years free has had a clear and precise definition, free is just that, free of cost, restrictions, it is just that, free.

While you seem to expect "free" to mean basically pure altruism, don't forget how that altruism evolved - it's a reciprocal thing of a social animal (or, broader, of animals sharing related genes and their "greed" for a delayed reward)

Reply Parent Score: 2